Tom Bombadil – An Intriguing Answer ! - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Faramir Jones · 01-13-2016, 07:10 AM

I was interested in what Boromir88 and later Inziladun said might happen if Saurman and Tom Bombadil met.

Someone has put on YouTube what might have happened if Sauron and Bombadil met on a battlefield:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZouiWmzWoY

Bêthberry · 01-13-2016, 07:11 PM

Alas, Faramir, I am not allowed yet to give you more rep for this, but this is wonderful. Thanks for posting it.

Boromir88 · 01-13-2016, 07:27 PM

Ditto. Great find, Faramir. And it's not hard to imagine Saruman in Sauron's place, because we all know Saruman was just a cheap copycat of Sauron.

Kuruharan · 01-14-2016, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Ditto. Great find, Faramir. And it's not hard to imagine Saruman in Sauron's place, because we all know Saruman was just a cheap copycat of Sauron.

I don't know...Sauron is known to have more of a sense of humor.

Balfrog · 01-17-2016, 10:16 PM

Jallanite

The rhetoric is becoming unnecessarily belligerent. It is disappointing that you are using ad hominem attacks against an author who certainly doesn't deserve such treatment. By repeatedly calling her a “crank” switches me off in continuing to try to engage in intelligent discourse.

The fact remains that you slammed this writer even before seeing her work based on speculation from others in a different forum who also had never read her work. It's a shame you were not prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt and refrain frpm attacking her essay with only a quarter of it being available. In short – we can all see the mindset was already formed and that she didn't receive a fair hearing.
Can we really see you as an adequate juror – let alone judge?

If you want to continue this discussion in an academic way – then please try to provide balance and objectivity. Your posts to date are so extreme they are beginning to possess an air of desperation.
Some of the arguments you are bringing in to justify your position of Priya Seth's essay being technically unsound, are very poor. For example:

(a) Using hobbit-lore in the form of poetry to buttress your arguments is highly questionable. Seasoned academics recognize the danger behind the 'truth' of that rhyme and refuse to consider its accuracy in understanding the origins or nature of Tom Bombadil (e.g. see S. Jensen on TB per slimy.com).

(b) Being fixated on the word 'enigma' being only interpretative in the way you want to think of it, is again not academically sound. Given as Priya Seth points out, the word's origin does lie in Greek and its root in 'riddle', then it behooves us to listen. We cannot absolutely preclude that Tolkien wasn't thinking that way. There is no reason why you shouldn't be able to acknowledge that.

(c ) As Priya Seth stated in the Preface to Part II - she did not pull her theory out of thin air.

https://priyasethtolkienfan.wordpres...cks-and-power/

There is logic to her proposal and she outlines its path. I can both follow it and understand it too. I'm not sure why you cannot acknowledge that the theory is a neat one and deserving of consideration rather than instantaneous dismissal.

Given the above – I will leave it to others to decide who is the real “crank”.

Balfrog · 01-17-2016, 10:42 PM

For those who want a more balanced and positive opinion of Priya Seth's essay – I personally found Part I:

(a) Well written and easy to read and follow.
(b) Logically laid out.
(c) The sub-divisions were helpful.
(d) The Summary was helpful.
(e) The usage of quotes from Tolkien's books and letters to bolster her theory is in line with other similar academic works.
(f) Not one quote has been mistakenly transposed.
(g) The avoidance – in general - of using quotes other than 'canon' is a plus.
(h) The avoidance of using material from hobbit-lore poetry and LotR drafts is a big plus.
(i) The fact that her theory is founded on two of Tolkien's letters (No. 153 & the 1964 one to Mr. Mroczkowski) means the grounding is solid. If Tolkien himself said that TB is an 'allegory' twice and emphasized it – then I see no reason why Priya cannot build on that. This is really no different than S. Jensen's theory that TB was a 'Nature spirit' because Tolkien strongly implied that in Letter No. 19. In my opinion, Priya Seth's theory has a little more weight because it was based on TB's character after LotR was published, while Jensen's is based on pre-LotR correspondence.
(j) Nothing different about Priya fitting her theory to include observations about TB and aligning them with Tolkien's quotes to bolster it, than other academics have done.

In my opinion, Priya Seth has not unreasonably extrapolated from the 1964 correspondence to P. Mroczkowski and rightfully explored the possibility of an 'allegory'. We must ask ourselves:

Why is this like a 'play'?
Why did Tolkien place emphasis on the word 'play'?
Why is it that the world outside contains off-stage characters such as 'stagehands, the producer and author'?
Why is it that Tom does not belong on-stage?
What precisely are the 'chinks in the scenery'?
Why are there simultaneous planes of reality that involve Tom?

Until now – as far as I can tell – Priya Seth has been the only person to offer up a solution that connects everything together. Kudos to her for having a go!

And to add substance to her theory, Priya has somewhat uniquely linked in and explained in Part II how TB performed all of those extraordinary 'tricks'

https://priyasethtolkienfan.wordpres...cks-and-power/

. How many theories after 60 years can do that!!!!

Nerwen · 01-18-2016, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Jallanite

The rhetoric is becoming unnecessarily belligerent. It is disappointing that you are using ad hominem attacks against an author who certainly doesn't deserve such treatment. By repeatedly calling her a “crank” switches me off in continuing to try to engage in intelligent discourse.

I agree jallanite is overly aggressive, and that this tends to move things away from discussion and towards conflict.

However, calling someone "a crank writer" after dissecting her actual arguments is not what is usually understood by "ad hominem".

Quote:

The fact remains that you slammed this writer even before seeing her work based on speculation from others in a different forum who also had never read her work.

What are you referring to here? Has something been edited out of earlier posts?

Quote:

It's a shame you were not prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt and refrain frpm attacking her essay with only a quarter of it being available. In short – we can all see the mindset was already formed and that she didn't receive a fair hearing.
Can we really see you as an adequate juror – let alone judge?

But you were the one who started the topic, asking for "any thoughts from others", regarding the then largely-unpublished essay. If it was too incomplete for anyone to be able to assess it fairly... maybe you should have waited?

And from that point on you essentially seem to be saying, "yeah, well, *I* agree with her", which is all well and good, but doesn't exactly give us much with which to engage.

PrinceOfTheHalflings · 01-22-2016, 03:59 AM

I have read Ms Seth's earlier book, as well as her latest writing on Tom Bombadil.

In the book, she spends several chapters trying to puzzle out whether the Balrog had wings, as if this was a particular puzzle that Tolkien had left us. However, there is NOTHING whatsoever in The Lord Of The Rings to indicate that the matter of the Balrog's wings was anything other than unintentional ambiguity. The great debate about the wings really only started after Tolkien died, as far as I can tell, so looking for coded answers in the text seems like a fool's errand. Of course, Ms Seth finds three anagrams that supposedly reveal the hidden truth. I won't spoil the surprise.

Her argument that Tolkien "must" have left a coded message about the Balrog is based on Tolkien being familiar with codes - both through his work in the First World War and also because he sent coded messages to Edith during that war to tell her where he was (something that was forbidden). He must have been pretty good because the military censors never noticed. However, just because Tolkien could encode a "secret message" in a text proves nothing whether there is one or more "messages" about the Balrog hidden in the text, and frankly it is quite easy to find all sorts of unintentional anagrams in a given piece of text.

I thought her Tom Bombadil essay showed more promise. The idea of the theatre/audience was interesting. However, before Part IV I thought to myself "I bet there's going to be another bloody anagram!" and, of course, there was. The anagram itself only reveals what most people assume about Tom - that he is a Maia. So hardly an "intriguing answer" is it?

Zigûr · 01-13-2016, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

I was interested in what Boromir88 and later Inziladun said might happen if Saurman and Tom Bombadil met.

Someone has put on YouTube what might have happened if Sauron and Bombadil met on a battlefield:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZouiWmzWoY

Classic. The wait for Sauron to join in at the end was agonising, but the payoff was worth it.

Battle for Middle-earth II was a fun game but things like summoning Bombadil were pretty bizarre. I think the evil forces (Mordor, Isengard and Mountain Goblins) could summon giant burrowing worms in much the same way, perhaps foreshadowing Peter Jackson...

The thing I find odd about these efforts to "solve" what Bombadil is that they seem to show an incomprehension of the possibility that the meaning of some things is that they don't have a clear or obvious meaning.

Boromir88 · 01-13-2016, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Battle for Middle-earth II was a fun game but things like summoning Bombadil were pretty bizarre. I think the evil forces (Mordor, Isengard and Mountain Goblins) could summon giant burrowing worms in much the same way, perhaps foreshadowing Peter Jackson...

I'm rereading The Hobbit now and I'm never surprised there's still so much to learn every time I pick up the books again...or maybe I'm just a forgetful person and I'm actually just relearning each time I read something again.

Anyway, there is a reference to were-worms in The Hobbit:

Quote:

"Tell me what you want done, and I will try it, if I have to walk from here to the East of East and fight the wild Were-worms in the Last Desert~Bilbo; An Unexpected Party

It sounds like one of those "Sasquatch/chupacabra" type tales...some mysterious and nasty monster in a far away land, but Jackson had to go and take away all the mystery.

Quote:

The thing I find odd about these efforts to "solve" what Bombadil is that they seem to show an incomprehension of the possibility that the meaning of some things is that they don't have a clear or obvious meaning.

Well, this admirer of history loves the unknown and unsolved mysteries.

I agree with Tolkien, every story needs their Tom Bombadils and I'm glad Jackson left him out of the movies.

Zigûr · 01-13-2016, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I'm rereading The Hobbit now and I'm never surprised there's still so much to learn every time I pick up the books again...or maybe I'm just a forgetful person and I'm actually just relearning each time I read something again.

Anyway, there is a reference to were-worms in The Hobbit:

Yes I know. It was this line from The Hobbit that they turned into an entire special unit/ability in the game. My point was that, like PJ, they extrapolated a single line of dialogue which is very seemingly a reference to some kind of legend into an entire element of battles.

Bombadil's inclusion in the game seemed like the biggest stretch, however, because they turned him into a character whose dances damage the enemy.

Even though Tom could free the Hobbits from Willow-Man and break open the Barrows, he doesn't seem like a violent character to me, or one who would have much power against enemies outside his own land. In this case it was, of course, just a game, but even so it seems like they were stretching the narrative to breaking point with that inclusion.

01-13-2016, 07:10 AM	#1
Faramir Jones Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Lonely Isle Posts: 706	If Sauron and Bombadil met on a battlefield I was interested in what Boromir88 and later Inziladun said might happen if Saurman and Tom Bombadil met. Someone has put on YouTube what might have happened if Sauron and Bombadil met on a battlefield: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZouiWmzWoY

01-13-2016, 07:11 PM	#2
Bêthberry Cryptic Aura Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 6,003	He is Alas, Faramir, I am not allowed yet to give you more rep for this, but this is wonderful. Thanks for posting it. __________________ I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away.

01-13-2016, 07:27 PM	#3
Boromir88 Laconic Loreman Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: USA Posts: 7,521	Ditto. Great find, Faramir. And it's not hard to imagine Saruman in Sauron's place, because we all know Saruman was just a cheap copycat of Sauron. __________________ Fenris Penguin

01-17-2016, 10:16 PM	#5
Balfrog Haunting Spirit Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 87	Jallanite The rhetoric is becoming unnecessarily belligerent. It is disappointing that you are using ad hominem attacks against an author who certainly doesn't deserve such treatment. By repeatedly calling her a “crank” switches me off in continuing to try to engage in intelligent discourse. The fact remains that you slammed this writer even before seeing her work based on speculation from others in a different forum who also had never read her work. It's a shame you were not prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt and refrain frpm attacking her essay with only a quarter of it being available. In short – we can all see the mindset was already formed and that she didn't receive a fair hearing. Can we really see you as an adequate juror – let alone judge? If you want to continue this discussion in an academic way – then please try to provide balance and objectivity. Your posts to date are so extreme they are beginning to possess an air of desperation. Some of the arguments you are bringing in to justify your position of Priya Seth's essay being technically unsound, are very poor. For example: (a) Using hobbit-lore in the form of poetry to buttress your arguments is highly questionable. Seasoned academics recognize the danger behind the 'truth' of that rhyme and refuse to consider its accuracy in understanding the origins or nature of Tom Bombadil (e.g. see S. Jensen on TB per slimy.com). (b) Being fixated on the word 'enigma' being only interpretative in the way you want to think of it, is again not academically sound. Given as Priya Seth points out, the word's origin does lie in Greek and its root in 'riddle', then it behooves us to listen. We cannot absolutely preclude that Tolkien wasn't thinking that way. There is no reason why you shouldn't be able to acknowledge that. (c ) As Priya Seth stated in the Preface to Part II - she did not pull her theory out of thin air. https://priyasethtolkienfan.wordpres...cks-and-power/ There is logic to her proposal and she outlines its path. I can both follow it and understand it too. I'm not sure why you cannot acknowledge that the theory is a neat one and deserving of consideration rather than instantaneous dismissal. Given the above – I will leave it to others to decide who is the real “crank”.

01-17-2016, 10:42 PM	#6
Balfrog Haunting Spirit Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 87	For those who want a more balanced and positive opinion of Priya Seth's essay – I personally found Part I: (a) Well written and easy to read and follow. (b) Logically laid out. (c) The sub-divisions were helpful. (d) The Summary was helpful. (e) The usage of quotes from Tolkien's books and letters to bolster her theory is in line with other similar academic works. (f) Not one quote has been mistakenly transposed. (g) The avoidance – in general - of using quotes other than 'canon' is a plus. (h) The avoidance of using material from hobbit-lore poetry and LotR drafts is a big plus. (i) The fact that her theory is founded on two of Tolkien's letters (No. 153 & the 1964 one to Mr. Mroczkowski) means the grounding is solid. If Tolkien himself said that TB is an 'allegory' twice and emphasized it – then I see no reason why Priya cannot build on that. This is really no different than S. Jensen's theory that TB was a 'Nature spirit' because Tolkien strongly implied that in Letter No. 19. In my opinion, Priya Seth's theory has a little more weight because it was based on TB's character after LotR was published, while Jensen's is based on pre-LotR correspondence. (j) Nothing different about Priya fitting her theory to include observations about TB and aligning them with Tolkien's quotes to bolster it, than other academics have done. In my opinion, Priya Seth has not unreasonably extrapolated from the 1964 correspondence to P. Mroczkowski and rightfully explored the possibility of an 'allegory'. We must ask ourselves: Why is this like a 'play'? Why did Tolkien place emphasis on the word 'play'? Why is it that the world outside contains off-stage characters such as 'stagehands, the producer and author'? Why is it that Tom does not belong on-stage? What precisely are the 'chinks in the scenery'? Why are there simultaneous planes of reality that involve Tom? Until now – as far as I can tell – Priya Seth has been the only person to offer up a solution that connects everything together. Kudos to her for having a go! And to add substance to her theory, Priya has somewhat uniquely linked in and explained in Part II how TB performed all of those extraordinary 'tricks' https://priyasethtolkienfan.wordpres...cks-and-power/ . How many theories after 60 years can do that!!!!

01-22-2016, 03:59 AM	#8
PrinceOfTheHalflings Wight Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 120	I have read Ms Seth's earlier book, as well as her latest writing on Tom Bombadil. In the book, she spends several chapters trying to puzzle out whether the Balrog had wings, as if this was a particular puzzle that Tolkien had left us. However, there is NOTHING whatsoever in The Lord Of The Rings to indicate that the matter of the Balrog's wings was anything other than unintentional ambiguity. The great debate about the wings really only started after Tolkien died, as far as I can tell, so looking for coded answers in the text seems like a fool's errand. Of course, Ms Seth finds three anagrams that supposedly reveal the hidden truth. I won't spoil the surprise. Her argument that Tolkien "must" have left a coded message about the Balrog is based on Tolkien being familiar with codes - both through his work in the First World War and also because he sent coded messages to Edith during that war to tell her where he was (something that was forbidden). He must have been pretty good because the military censors never noticed. However, just because Tolkien could encode a "secret message" in a text proves nothing whether there is one or more "messages" about the Balrog hidden in the text, and frankly it is quite easy to find all sorts of unintentional anagrams in a given piece of text. I thought her Tom Bombadil essay showed more promise. The idea of the theatre/audience was interesting. However, before Part IV I thought to myself "I bet there's going to be another bloody anagram!" and, of course, there was. The anagram itself only reveals what most people assume about Tom - that he is a Maia. So hardly an "intriguing answer" is it?